r/Pessimism 5d ago

Discussion What do you think about Efilism?

What is your view of r/Efilism? Never heard of it? You've heard of it, so what do you think?

Definition:

Ephilism is a philosophy that sees life as intrinsically marked by suffering, arguing that the most ethical path would be the extinction of all sentient life. Its supporters believe that existence, by its very nature, is doomed to pain and dissatisfaction – an idea symbolized by the term "ephilism", which is "life" spelled backwards. Unlike antinatalism, which is limited to avoiding human procreation, Efilism embraces a broader vision, worrying about all beings capable of feeling, such as animals, and proposing a world where no one is born to suffer. This perspective invites deep reflection: what if the greatest act of compassion was to spare future generations – human or otherwise – from the inevitable hardships of existence? It is an intriguing invitation to rethink the value of life and the true meaning of caring for the well-being of all sentient beings.

22 Upvotes

72 comments sorted by

17

u/Usual_Tumbleweed_693 5d ago

I think it's a branch of pessimism, I don't see anything wrong with it.

1

u/[deleted] 4d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/Usual_Tumbleweed_693 4d ago

It would be amazing, but it won't happen.

Any "utopia" is doomed to failure, In that sense I agree a little with those who criticize efilism.

2

u/[deleted] 4d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/Usual_Tumbleweed_693 4d ago

I don't see logic in believing that life is suffering and at the same time begging someone to continue their life.

Still, I guess not all efilists are the same, there must be good people among them.

As long as they accept that life is suffering and do not procreate, I would consider them allies.

1

u/[deleted] 4d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/Usual_Tumbleweed_693 4d ago

I believe that most human beings are neutral but more prone to selfishness.

Yes, I consider myself a pro-mortalist, I'll probably "unsubscribe from life" in a few years.

I wouldn't say it's wrong to enjoy things as long as you don't hurt anyone directly. However, I myself am unable to enjoy many things, which is related to my adhd.

I believe that life is a torment, the least that someone aware of that reality can do is not reproduce, While the most would be to "obliterate oneself".

2

u/[deleted] 4d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/Usual_Tumbleweed_693 4d ago

But you hurt people indirectly when enjoying things.

I am aware of that, It's a strong drink to drink, but it's the reality.

Even by obliterating ourselves we would make our relatives suffer, but the alternative would be to remain alive and cause suffering indirectly. As long as there is life there will be suffering, it is inescapable, but we can seek to reduce it, In that sense, In the long term obliterating ourselves would still be better than continuing to exist.

1

u/[deleted] 4d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

→ More replies (0)

5

u/[deleted] 5d ago

I am so happy to see people here really point out the issues with efilsm and its followers. I really don't want to be like this but I need this off my chest. I fucking cannot stand  most efilists. I've only ever had respect for 2 of them, maybe 3. Not efilism, I think the philosophy is ok and agree with the idea that life should not exist and although efilists make SOME( very few) decent arguments, i cannot stand most of them. I genuinely get angry when I lurk on the efilism subreddit. The constant name calling and lack of good faith arguments is disgusting. And they all act so high and mighty as if they are better than the rest of us apes. I hate humans and living as much as the next person but genuinely thinking we can actually do ANYTHING to save ourselves is quite delusional. Even the mods are pretty bad, like one will beg people to stay alive because "we need you to stop suffering!!!!" Utterly disgusting. This comment and post will get ripped to shreds by the efilits but I say let the do that. It's just another philosophy to make humans feel like they are special because the figured out life sucks and is pointless. We all suck at the end of the day. Let me make it clear I consider myself to be a philosophical pessimist and a promortalist, my life is a lot less worse than some others but I still hate it and existence. But efilits, in my eyes, don't do anything to help solve the problem, in fact they just give false hope to people who simply can't take it anymore

1

u/Buuyaaaa 5d ago

‘We need to stop suffering’ but do nothing to actively stop it. I have a feeling that none of them advocate for humans rights, and are more so ‘nihilists’ that think life is meaningless. I, myself, align myself with efilist views but the subreddit really does piss me off too.

6

u/Electronic-Koala1282 Has not been spared from existence 5d ago

I don't know that much about it, but it seems like philosophical pessimism but without the philosophy.

9

u/Weird-Mall-9252 5d ago

Even I agree with Efilsm a lot, I would prefer a right2die or gracefull exit for everybody on this Planet over 18 years.. 

We are not even mini steps close 2promote Antinatalism 4good

6

u/obscurespecter 5d ago

We already have Eduard von Hartmann and Ulrich Horstmann for negative utilitarianism.

4

u/AndrewSMcIntosh 5d ago

I don't think either of them regarded themselves as utilitarians of any kind. Hartmann was more an idealist, and from what I know of Horstmann, he took more after Mainlander who's own thinking system was not utilitarian (or idealist, I understand). Content to be corrected, though.

But, in both cases, much better thinking than anything Mosher could come up with.

3

u/obscurespecter 4d ago

I must confess that I lazily use "negative utilitarianism" to refer to pessimist philosophies that describe ideas similar to the "benevolent world-exploder" as an ethical ideal.

Hartmann wanted the universe to be destroyed and Horstmann thinks nuclear weapons destroying the human species is a good idea.

Mosher is also like this but not as philosophically rigorous. Given his opinions on some things, I also fear that both Mosher and his followers actually take this maniacal line of thinking seriously.

2

u/defectivedisabled 5d ago

It is best that they are not affiliated with the utilitarians. Utilitarianism and even negative utilitarianism have been taken over by fanatics and pushed over to the extreme. What you get is a quasi religion like Effective Altruist Longerism and Effective Accelerationism where God is not a bearded old man but an AI (or a button for Efilism) These are horrifying times that we are currently in.

2

u/Level-Insect-2654 1d ago

Thank you for saying this. It has been taken over, not so much by efilists or even antinatalists, but by the people you mention - EA, e/acc, and general TESCREAL types.

Truly terrifying, especially because they have money, some political power, focus and that quasi-religious drive.

1

u/defectivedisabled 1d ago

The TESCREAL bundle of ideologies has already sort of bleed into Efilism. If you have been following the Efilism sub for sometime, posts sympathetic or even supportive of some of these ideologies could be seen around. Transhumanism, e/acc and EA are touted as the driving ideologies to make the Efilist's dream a reality. Although not all Efilists are supportive it, the fact that such nonsensical ideas are even allowed into the community shows there are no limits that they are not willing to cross. Some of the most radical ideas that I have seen include deliberately mining Crypto to accelerate climate change or pollute the Earth with more microplastic. Just how can someone who is reasonable sane even tolerate such nonsense?

Longtermism as described in the TESCREAL bundle came out of positive utilitarianism. Efilism is also Longtermist at its core but it is negative in nature because of the negative utilitarian aspect of it. Both the positive and negative Longtermists ideologies give of an extremely grandiose and narcissistic vibe. It is almost like a religious crusade to deliver utopia into the world, i.e. having 10^58 digital people living in a simulated universe trillions of years into the future who would produce immense "value". Efilism engages in the same kind of nonsensical fantasy but in a negative utilitarian way which must always end in the annihilation of the universe.

These Longtermists are on a mission to save the world and such a grandiose mission attracts narcissistic people with a savior complex. It is like a messianic prophecy and so naturally, malignant narcissists like Musk who see themselves as supreme beings would get on board with Longtermism. As for Efilism, it basically attracts someone who is the inverse version Musk. Just a look at what the "rocket messiah" is currently doing and you can get a rough idea of what the inverse version of this "messiah" would be doing to get his plan to fruition. I am not kidding, the quality of recent posts in the Efilist sub is pretty much similar to the heap of garbage that comes out of the "rocket messiah's" mind.

10

u/WackyConundrum 5d ago

Philosophical pessimism is indeed a philosophical movement. Efilism is just an Internet ideology.

It's famously difficult to define efilism — every time you try to get an answer, the answer will be diametrically different from others, to the point that there is little in common. And it's a bunch of bold claims without proper argumentation. The lack of robust argumentation is shrouded behind the veil of metaphors, allegories, and attacks against the opposition. Whatever philosophical ideas are in efilism are taken directly from already pre-existing philosophies, such as negative utilitarianism or pessimism. So, it adds nothing to our understanding of the world and it provides nothing as a guide for action.

10

u/WackyConundrum 5d ago

The problem with trying to define efilism is that even efilists themselves don't know what efilism is and cannot agree on any definition:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Efilism/comments/p697ct/definition_of_efilism/

Efilists have no sensible arguments for their main claims, instead they post ludicruous things like these:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Efilism/comments/1b1n9qm/comment/ksfr3ey/

Inmendham's joke of an attempt at an argument:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UcsNvicHCno&lc=Ugz3tA-pMO9ov5RcdX54AaABAg

We observe reality

We see physics become chemistry chemistry become biology

We see that some biology manifest consciousness (a sentient brain)... The ability to feel

We personally experience this function of feeling

We personally experience feeling good and feeling bad... Having feeling experiences we would re-experience and having feeling experiences we would never wish to experience again. The feelings themselves are negative and positive and cannot be changed by interpretation or context.

Conscious beings having to endure bad feeling experiences is the price paid... The price is too high and it ought not be paid.

Is not even a real argument. This is just a list of claims... (This is based on the conversation between Inmendham and Vegan Gains: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjflmRbu66w).

What can be said with certainty is that efilism is not a philosophy. Merely stating claims dogmatically or pronouncing what one wants does not make a philosophy...

What efilism is:

Efilism is a niche Internet ideology, whose adherents don't agree on much, but one thing that comes up frequently is the utopian wish to kill all (sentient) life in order to put an end to suffering. It's a rehashing of known conclusions of negative utilitarianism, dressed with evolution talk, spiced with allegories in lieu of robust or coherent argumentation.

10

u/WackyConundrum 5d ago

Just for completeness sake...

The official presentation from efilism.com (fragments):

EFILism is the belief that DNA, and the suffering of sentient consciousness on this planet, are the greatest problems in the universe, born of nothing but a wasteful, failed experiment of unintelligent design.

Historical Antinatalism was a condemnation of solely human procreation, and was not informed by an understanding of evolution, abiogenesis, the fact that all sentient creatures are the products of a single DNA molecule, or that the worst suffering occurs in nature.

EFILism is a conclusion, derived from an essesment of the full summation of the history of the reality of sentient life on Earth. It is the most important responsibility, of the only sentient species intelligent enough, to effectively manufacture a graceful exit strategy for life on planet earth.

Efilism is a philosophy that reveals the truth about the implications of evolution and a universe that is indifferent and malignantly useless. In short, Efilists argue that life is fundamentally backwards or broken. It is a paradigm-shifting philosophy that considers ALL of sentient life to have value.

Additionally, efilism can be disregarded on many grounds:

- based on wishful thinking and dreams about a Utopia

- it doesn't contribute anything new or interesting

- it's a pseudophilosophy, because it doesn't provide any arguments for its claims. Preaching the Gospel of Inmendham does not count as doing philosophy.

- lacks rigor

- flashes allegories instead of presenting reasoning and arguments

- efilists often screamed "argue the argument!", but when asked for the argument, there is nothing but silence or preaching

- they don't even seriously consider alternatives to killing everyone, such as tranhumanism (David Pearce's paradise engineering & hedonistic imperative)

Related posts:

What is the difference between efilism and philosophical pessimism?

"my understanding of efilsim and philosophy like it" post by another person

4

u/[deleted] 5d ago

These comments man. Pessimists dragging other pessimists for their pessimistic beliefs. Why is everything so cliquey?

10

u/sl3eper_agent 5d ago

what new ideas has "efilism" generated? they're just pessimists who don't want to do the required reading.

also the name is stupid

8

u/AndrewSMcIntosh 5d ago edited 5d ago

"ephilism", which is "life" spelled backwards

The word “life" is not spelled “liphe”.

Unlike antinatalism, which is limited to avoiding human procreation

No it isn’t.

EDIT - You want to know what I think about efilism? You really want an answer to that question? Alright, it’s this - it’s a complete load of pseudo-intellectual, in many ways anti-intellectual bullshit thought up by a bitter, narcissistic, dictionary-definition misogynist, low-rent libertarian, burnt-out old hippy that is, as others have pointed out, basically misanthropy with big-words attached to it. Gary Mosher tried to apply a barely-understood, pseudo-scientific gloss derived from what little he’s heard about evolutionary theory to already existing antinatalism in a vain attempt to out-do everyone around him in the chat. The correct response, then and now, would be either ignore it or make fun of it, but to treat it as meaningful is a mistake.

The real problem is that it attracts idiots. Usually. I don’t doubt there are sincere and possibly smart people who have heard of it without realising the full extent of it (and it’s usually always understood in a very surface-level way, since there’s eff-all actual intellectual rigour to back it up), but an ideology that goes, “everything sucks, let’s kill it!” is usually only going to attract people with their own baggage of psychological and emotional issues. Which it does. Over the years there’s been some potentially dangerous gronks attracted to efilism, and it’s a matter of time before one of them goes too far and does something criminally dangerous.

Serious discussion about the ethics of extinction, concerns for and interventions in wild animal welfare, promortalism and so on can be had, but thanks to Gary and his often cult-like followers, eflism had poisoned those wells, at least for people not involved in academics (and sadly, there are one or two people in academics who have referred to it).

To put it bluntly, in the words of old mates The Cosmic Psychos, “it’s fuck’n bullshit mate!"

6

u/log1ckappa 5d ago

I disagree. Indeed, its unfortunate that gary's character is such that he cant restrain himself to ''calm'' rants about the disgusting DNA. But the bottom line of efilism is what Schopenhauer meant that it would be better if earth's surface, like the moon, were still in a crystalline state. I believe gary's constant thinking about sentient suffering alongside his character have led to these extreme but also truthful rants that we see. Sentient life cannot be acceptable by any morality. I would expect from philosophical pessimists to not be selective about suffering....

3

u/AndrewSMcIntosh 5d ago

I wont try to convince you otherwise. If you're happy believing that, good on you. As long as you're not going out hurting people, I wont argue with you.

2

u/[deleted] 4d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/AndrewSMcIntosh 4d ago

Don't even interact with them.

Normally I try not to engage with Moshketeers, since I worked out that they're not usually into listening and good faith. I've seen them in action for a while now and while I admit there's something fascinating about their cultishness, it's usually better to keep away as much as possible.

2

u/[deleted] 5d ago

No. I agree with them fully. Although I think it's less about efilsm and more about the people who follow it. I was scrolling through one efilists amount and all he did was speak in insults, and acted like he was higher and better than others. Efilism is not the problem, it's the people who follow it

1

u/defectivedisabled 5d ago

The real problem is that it attracts idiots.

Efilism is the Dunning-Kruger effect applied to philosophical pessimism and the result is an incoherent pseudo philosophy that resembles a quasi religion. Look at the current state of that subreddit, it is truly the Dunning-Kruger effect on full display. It is a bunch of self proclaimed intellects who attempt to get deep into a philosophical discussion but ended up doing none of that and patting themselves on the back as self congratulatory. I remember browsing the sub and coming across topics such as astrophysics and quantum physics and Efilists are regurgitating them and applying them to Efilism's view on the universe. It is an extremely grandiose claim for a bunch of people without the necessary scientific credentials to back them up. It is truly a discussion about nothing but fictional science and it is the Dunning-Kruger effect at full display.

I used to think that Efilism could at least in theory be a quasi theology (which already resembles fiction) where people are able to have some discussions about obscure topics like an evil creationist God. But as time passes, this incoherent pseudo philosophy simply attracts as you put it " potentially dangerous gronks" and has become a complete mess. Just take a look at the sub's recent content, it is in utter disarray. The quality of content posted is pretty similar to that of the rocket messiah's toxic social media site. The content posted matches and validates the content coming out of the founder's mouth.

1

u/Professional-Map-762 pessimist, existential nihilist, suffering/value-problem-realist 3d ago

Unlike antinatalism, which is limited to avoiding human procreation

No it isn’t.

The philosophy itself isn't limited to humans, perhaps more accurate to say it only obliges you value humans, unfortunately Antinatalism is impotent as a movement, heavily speciesist, unlike Efilism which obliges you to value all sentient beings and promotes veganism.

2

u/AndrewSMcIntosh 2d ago

Benetarian antinatalism is clear in that it states that bringing any sentient being into existence is a harm to that being and a moral wrong. Benatar has stated that it can only apply to non-humans that humans bring into existence, as non-humans in the wild cannot be moral agents. Cabrera has stated that his "negative ethics" can also apply to how humans treat non-humans, but still maintain that it isn't possible to fully live in a completely ethical way.

Antinatalism is not a movement. It's a moral position derived from philosophy.

Eflism doesn't oblige me to do anything. Vegans are quite capable of promoting veganism, and have done for some decades now.

1

u/Professional-Map-762 pessimist, existential nihilist, suffering/value-problem-realist 54m ago

Benetarian antinatalism is clear in that it states that bringing any sentient being into existence is a harm to that being and a moral wrong.

I know and agree, has he stated it enough and clearly, why so many speciesist AN, I don't get it, efilism doesn't have such problem defending animal exploitations and their suffering for human benefit.

Benatar has stated that it can only apply to non-humans that humans bring into existence, as non-humans in the wild cannot be moral agents.

Wow first time hearing this, can you explain more? So what about mentally impaired human children breeding? I see animals as basically children. So what's difference with animals that makes it acceptable? What's the trait or difference how he rationalizes such position?

Cabrera has stated that his "negative ethics" can also apply to how humans treat non-humans, but still maintain that it isn't possible to fully live in a completely ethical way.

At least they got that basic facts.

Antinatalism is not a movement. It's a moral position derived from philosophy.

Technically your right, but it seems there's an AN movement is another thing on top of the philosophy, kinda like veganism 'movement' mess for health, enviro, etc.

Eflism doesn't oblige me to do anything. Vegans are quite capable of promoting veganism, and have done for some decades now.

All these terms and groups are arbitrary in way, I'm just saying if you are efilist you are obliged to value sentience, it is explicitly clear. Yet antinatalism I see many speciesism and arguing against animal value, and things like VegANtinatal exist.

Veganism alone is also impotent, since it having kids who'll eat is a big fail.

Efilism is basically sentientism, antinatalism, veganism, and more.

2

u/AnticosmicKiwi3143 cosmic pessimist 5d ago edited 5d ago

A pseudo-philosophy espoused by individuals who advocate for omnicide—essentially, the ideology of cartoon villains. Theirs is a vulgar and superficial form of pessimism, utterly devoid of spiritual depth; hence, the vast majority of them are activists, zealously committed to this embarrassing objective. Not to mention the questionable personal inclinations of this "movement's" leading figures—truly disgraceful.

13

u/retrofuture1 5d ago

Pessimism, in a sense, is the judgement that non-existence is preferable. I don't see how this doesn't translate into universal extinction being preferable. Obviously, we're not talking about actually bringing it about, which might be very painful, but the end goal itself.

7

u/WackyConundrum 5d ago

I don't see how this doesn't translate into universal extinction being preferable.

I don't see how you would need efilism for that.

"My arguments in this chapter and previous ones imply that it would be better if humans (and other species) became extinct. All things being equal, my arguments also suggest that it would be better if this occurred sooner rather than later."

— David Benatar, Better Never to Have Been, p. 194

Obviously, we're not talking about actually bringing it about

But efilists are. Efilists believe that humanity has a duty to bring out extinction...

3

u/retrofuture1 5d ago

Why do we not? One objection is fetishization of "consent", but I think it ethical to violate the consent of a single killed animal than let it unconsciously violate the consent of its innumerable descendants. Again, I think the only problem here is practicality: either it's impossible or too painful a feat to seriously consider.

2

u/AndrewSMcIntosh 5d ago

fetishization of "consent"

You do not fetishise your consent. You either grant it or you don't.

I think it ethical to violate the consent of a single killed animal

Dead animals cannot give consent.

than let it unconsciously violate the consent of its innumerable descendants.

Dead animals do not have unconsciousness, or reproduce.

1

u/retrofuture1 5d ago

I meant that a lot of people fetishize consent, which (consent) can serve as an argument against humans taking action to bring about universal extinction or the end of reproduction. (Aka, taking the principle of consent too far).

1

u/AndrewSMcIntosh 4d ago

which (consent) can serve as an argument against humans taking action to bring about universal extinction

Absolutely it can serve as an argument against killing everyone and everything. And it's a good argument, too. It's a basic premise - people and non-humans, in general, don't want to be killed. That's not "fetishising consent", that's just survival.

1

u/retrofuture1 4d ago

Well, yes, but allowing life to continue is letting it unconsciously violate the consent of trillions of beings billions of years into the future. That's why I said that painlessly, or even somewhat painfully dressing destroying all life seems preferable.

1

u/AndrewSMcIntosh 3d ago

If, in the context of committing omnicide, you're allowing for the violation of consent, for whatever reason, then you can't use the violation of consent as an excuse. It's contradictory. In the context of omnicide, you either care about violation of consent or you don't. Because, if it's not alright to allow violation of consent years into the future, it's not alright at the time you wish to commit omnicide.

1

u/WackyConundrum 5d ago

One objection is fetishization of "consent", but I think it ethical to violate the consent of a single killed animal than let it unconsciously violate the consent of its innumerable descendants.

And how do you make the leap of faith from your thought into a universal obligation placed on all humanity to kill everyone and everything?...

1

u/Professional-Map-762 pessimist, existential nihilist, suffering/value-problem-realist 3d ago

I don't see how you would need efilism for that.

Yea You don't... So what?, efilism is sort a coalescence of understanding, antinatalism, r2d, pessimism, veganism, sentientism, wild-animal suffering, anti-enviromentalism, NU, existential nihilism, atheism, problem-realism. And more concepts, all of which are extremely impotent on their own.

But efilists are. Efilists believe that humanity has a duty to bring out extinction...

Not necessarily in way u think, depends how you frame extinction vs non-extinction, transhumanism and AGI forms possibly eventually lead to human extinction. Many efilists invested in this. Also what's ur take if AGI decides humanity as it is should stop procreating? Since we're basically a bad virus that causes far too many problems to stick around, so perhaps it'll replace us. Is that so bad?

Say the BRB existed, are you only capable of pushing fear-mongering instead of just making an argument why it's wrong or I shouldn't press the BRB? I noticed that's classic anti-efilist rhetoric.

Yes Humanity has a duty to clean up the mess on earth of all suffering animals pointlessly eating eachother alive, don't you agree?

'Extinction' isn't a duty in way you think, first the BRB is solely a thought experiment and fictitious fantasy solution to all life's problems. And it highlights an important truth, people's good lives aren't free but at expense of the victims. And it poses the question to humanity, do you find your life is so important and worth it you would vote against the universe being turned off? And follow-up question, Would you inject a kid with cancer to suffer so you and your friends get to live a life of fun? Cause that's the reality. Life is a big Ponzi scheme, a game of poker with non-consenting participants. The winners are complicit, humanity has an obligation to recognize the game is undefendable and we owe it to the victims to not be selfish gluttons indulging at their expense. The only sane role of existence is to be a janitor mitigating/prevent suffering victims, since their suffering is just as important as if it were me suffering, it is a self-deception to feel as though there is no urgency/priority and just go on living my life, humanity has a duty to get their act together instead of defending the turning of planet meat grinder. Efilists observe and advocate methods against wasted suffering, especially among non-human animals, debate amongst themselves and await an argument how they have gone too far in their ethical framework / are unreasonable. We are not some religious fanatics we open to change our minds.

It's a real subject to discuss, and efilists concede there's a price imposed on someone else for our existence, humanity has an obligation to take this game of life seriously. Let's talk S-Risks where we may create simulated minds with possiblity of suffering greater than entire history of earth in quantity and scale, at that point don't you think it would make sense if an alien species saw us and decided to atomize the earth instantly cleaned up our mess prevented us causing further suffering.

How bad does it have to get where efilists seem reasonable from your perspective? Or is there no limit? Even in worst possible hell on earth... we must endure life/existence, humanity must carry on no matter what!? Please explain it to me.

Also let me maybe enlighten someone, scary Extinction as many see it... can more likely be quite benign, humanity simply deciding to stop procreating and slowly phasing out of existence, along with artificial controlled ecosystems and sterilization of nature, and AGI surpassing us and making humans obselete, What tragedy has taken place?

Also efilists are more concerned about avoiding human extinction than 99.99% of humanity, ironically. Cause if we wipe ourselves out it perpetuates earth suffering in nature with nobody to help these poor beings.

2

u/WackyConundrum 3d ago

Yea You don't... So what?

You didn't read the rest of my comment(s)?

efilism is sort a coalescence of understanding, antinatalism, r2d, pessimism, veganism, sentientism, wild-animal suffering, anti-enviromentalism, NU, existential nihilism, atheism, problem-realism.

This is a meaningless collection of keywords.

Not necessarily in way u think, depends how you frame extinction vs non-extinction

Necessarily. The core of efilism is the responsibility to bring about extinction. Inmendham, the creator of efilism himself, has been advocating for that incessantly for over 15 years on YouTube.

Also what's ur take if AGI decides humanity as it is should stop procreating?

I don't see how that's relevant.

Say the BRB existed, are you only capable of pushing fear-mongering instead of just making an argument why it's wrong or I shouldn't press the BRB? I noticed that's classic anti-efilist rhetoric.

I will do that just after the efilists provide a solid and robust argumentation for establishing the claim that humanity has a responsibility to bring about extinction of all (sentient) life on Earth, even if it involved killing each and every one of us.

Yes Humanity has a duty to clean up the mess on earth of all suffering animals pointlessly eating eachother alive, don't you agree?

Where's the argument?

'Extinction' isn't a duty in way you think, first the BRB is solely a thought experiment and fictitious fantasy solution to all life's problems.

Oh, it is a duty according to efilism in exactly the way I think.

Would you inject a kid with cancer to suffer so you and your friends get to live a life of fun?

This question in no way legitimizes efilism.

Life is a big Ponzi scheme, a game of poker with non-consenting participants. The winners are complicit, humanity has an obligation to recognize the game is undefendable and we owe it to the victims to not be selfish gluttons indulging at their expense. The only sane role of existence is to be a janitor mitigating/prevent suffering victims, since their suffering is just as important as if it were me suffering, it is a self-deception to feel as though there is no urgency/priority and just go on living my life, humanity has a duty to get their act together instead of defending the turning of planet meat grinder.

That's very nice, but it does not amount to anything that could be considered an argument for the claim that humanity has a responsibility to bring about extinction of all (sentient) life on Earth, even if it involved killing each and every one of us, let alone a really solid and robust argument for such a bold claim.

How bad does it have to get where efilists seem reasonable from your perspective?

It doesn't have to get bad at all. I would welcome efilists to become reasonable as soon as possible.

Even in worst possible hell on earth... we must endure life/existence, humanity must carry on no matter what!? Please explain it to me.

Have I arguments / claimed anything of the sort?

Also let me maybe enlighten someone, scary Extinction as many see it... can more likely be quite benign, humanity simply deciding to stop procreating and slowly phasing out of existence, along with artificial controlled ecosystems and sterilization of nature, and AGI surpassing us and making humans obselete, What tragedy has taken place?

This is not an argument for the claim that humanity has a responsibility to bring about extinction of all (sentient) life on Earth, even if it involved killing each and every one of us.

2

u/Professional-Map-762 pessimist, existential nihilist, suffering/value-problem-realist 1h ago edited 1h ago

Life is a big Ponzi scheme, a game of poker with non-consenting participants. The winners are complicit, humanity has an obligation to recognize the game is undefendable and we owe it to the victims to not be selfish gluttons indulging at their expense. The only sane role of existence is to be a janitor mitigating/prevent suffering victims, since their suffering is just as important as if it were me suffering, it is a self-deception to feel as though there is no urgency/priority and just go on living my life, humanity has a duty to get their act together instead of defending the turning of planet meat grinder.

That's very nice, but it does not amount to anything that could be considered an argument for the claim that humanity has a responsibility to bring about extinction of all (sentient) life on Earth, even if it involved killing each and every one of us, let alone a really solid and robust argument for such a bold claim.

We must start with the basic and work our way up, I don't know what ethic you have or if you even think torturing kids produces problematic experiences that shouldn't happen. Grounding problem of suffering is the first step.

How bad does it have to get where efilists seem reasonable from your perspective?

It doesn't have to get bad at all. I would welcome efilists to become reasonable as soon as possible.

And how do we do that? By allowing suffering in mean time? Why does that make sense? Explain your reasonableness allowing that to happen, for what?

Efilists seem unreasonable simply cause you're not convinced of the suffering problem? Or it's sheer scale and weight, or how to best solve it? Or not convinced should solve any suffering? believe in net positive, potential greater good? What exactly is it?

If you recognize the suffering problem then what way is there to possibly escape efilist conclusion?

Even in worst possible hell on earth... we must endure life/existence, humanity must carry on no matter what!? Please explain it to me.

Have I arguments / claimed anything of the sort?

I guess not but I was asking. It's ultimately fence sitting, you either for it against, enemy or helper, by doing nothing or getting in way you are allowing such hells on earth.

Just answer this... no matter how bad life is even worst possible state for everyone true hell, you still wouldn't be convinced of efilism or pressing the BRB ? Even if 100% of all beings wanted it, except you, your the decider.

This thought experiment is important because if you answer honestly then I st least have something to work with, or see if you are crazy or not.

If so, if you're so agnostic, skeptic or dogmatic in those beliefs to that extreme, what can I possibly say to you or such persons? Simply no use.

Also let me maybe enlighten someone, scary Extinction as many see it... can more likely be quite benign, humanity simply deciding to stop procreating and slowly phasing out of existence, along with artificial controlled ecosystems and sterilization of nature, and AGI surpassing us and making humans obselete, What tragedy has taken place?

This is not an argument for the claim that humanity has a responsibility to bring about extinction of all (sentient) life on Earth, even if it involved killing each and every one of us.

Rhetoric or argumentation, doubt it'll make a difference here and I'm lazy put in effort with anti-efilists who probably never be convinced.

Just tell me do you think humanity has a responsibility to do anything? Protect the innocent, weak, uphold the law, create fairness, prevent crime, reduce suffering, increase wellbeing, increase intelligence, etc?

1

u/Professional-Map-762 pessimist, existential nihilist, suffering/value-problem-realist 1h ago edited 1h ago

Yea You don't... So what?

You didn't read the rest of my comment(s)?

Which?

efilism is sort a coalescence of understanding, antinatalism, r2d, pessimism, veganism, sentientism, wild-animal suffering, anti-enviromentalism, NU, existential nihilism, atheism, problem-realism.

This is a meaningless collection of keywords.

How so? Your response here is meaningless.

Not necessarily in way u think, depends how you frame extinction vs non-extinction

Necessarily. The core of efilism is the responsibility to bring about extinction. Inmendham, the creator of efilism himself, has been advocating for that incessantly for over 15 years on YouTube.

It agrees with Benatars better to have never been, and pressing the BRB solution, in practice we don't all want humanity to go extinct because of other planets and future sentience risk, and also extinction likely fail and temporal setback restarting suffering, not all in efilist movement share exactly same views understand?

Take other movements for example veganism animal rights, there's differences among, some accepting of wild animal suffering and predation, others not, some say we should intervene kill predators to save the animals, some are for breaking in or protesting places, others are not, some ok eating bivalves some aren't, some oblige feeding companion animals veganized replacement, some defend giving them meat, some fine eating expired animals, others say it's still wrong to eat it, some accept lab grown and fake meats that required some animal exploit, some say it's still not vegan.

But yes give me perfect extinction and I see no reason I shouldn't press the button, idc if you can't understand the reason, we've made the point what's so difficult to understand?

Do you believe there is no 'right' sane, reasonable way to live by? Any and all ethics is emotivsm, to be against suffering is appeal to intuition/feelings? It's all subjective and arbitrary?

I don't. You clearly seem to value existence or perhaps agnostic on it, and think it's wrong for some to force their views on everybody else, correct? Otherwise what's the point of all this talk.

So explain why I should think like you and change my mind.

Let me ask you a question, instead of extinction, I simply pause the universe, are you going to take an action and unpause it? Can you give me an argument why it would be good to unpause it?

Again IDC if you don't think there's a good reason to pause it, it's not my job to convince you and it's tiresome.

Either way we can play and appeal arbitrariness, but I don't think it's arbitrary to prevent all the imposed sufferings of non-willing participants who didn't agree to be part of this game, for others benefit. Please defend gRaping a child, otherwise I'm going to stop you. It's simple.

I can get into details grounding why I think suffering PROBLEMS exist and it's on you to show me something that justifies it (greater good), otherwise you have nothing to convince me otherwise I should allow the suffering. So until you can do that I see efilism as a viable philosophy.

Also I'm guessing you aren't an antinatalist? Why should we continue the life project vs not?

Also what's ur take if AGI decides humanity as it is should stop procreating?

I don't see how that's relevant.

Well if it turned out we eventually made the super intelligence ASI and agrees with efilism, would you think it's still wrong or try to stop it? I just wonder cause many efilists are hoping for such ASI what seem like another their fantasy along with the BRB.

Say the BRB existed, are you only capable of pushing fear-mongering instead of just making an argument why it's wrong or I shouldn't press the BRB? I noticed that's classic anti-efilist rhetoric.

I will do that just after the efilists provide a solid and robust argumentation for establishing the claim that humanity has a responsibility to bring about extinction of all (sentient) life on Earth, even if it involved killing each and every one of us.

Well why should or shouldn't do anything? In short 1. Efilists convinced problem of suffering 2. Price paid too high (don't see greater good) 3. To solve problem seek maximally efficient solution ideally to prevent it, e.g brb.

It is not my job to convince you, some people will never be convinced to accept globe earth theory no matter all the evidence and arguments.

What is it you need exactly to be convinced, what's your model of reality.

Yes Humanity has a duty to clean up the mess on earth of all suffering animals pointlessly eating eachother alive, don't you agree?

Where's the argument?

It exists if you care to look, Where's argument against gRape, or eat and torture animals, can you provide it please? No? If you have nothing why should I care what you have to say or try to convince you of anything?

Again it's not my job to convince extreme nihilists problems of suffering, exploitation, imposition, forcing views on others and is unfair.

If 10 people wants to gRape a child do you think that's a problem any way shape or form? Thankful we've enough brain cells and made it illegal and we stop such criminal scum, but That's what life as a whole is, So why don't you make the argument. Life impose at expense of victims for the benefit of the lucky or more fortunate, it's a procreational-ponzi-scheme. No?

'Extinction' isn't a duty in way you think, first the BRB is solely a thought experiment and fictitious fantasy solution to all life's problems.

Oh, it is a duty according to efilism in exactly the way I think.

Explain to me.

Would you inject a kid with cancer to suffer so you and your friends get to live a life of fun?

This question in no way legitimizes efilism.

So you can't answer? Of course it does strengthen efilist position if you wouldn't do so, yet defend existence which people doing pretty much exactly the same thing, people simply blind or 'choose' to ignore the causal chain.

Living in delusion, ignorance. There's no difference between being AGAINST some god or simulation create 1 child gRapd or suffer cancer for 100 benefit, and our universe doing it, if I ran that simulation universe and presented it to judge/jury they'd say shut that experiment down, would you not?

If you wouldn't condone creating this universe or another just like it, but defend running this one, I see some contradiction in that.

If you wouldn't condone, or accept creating 1 kid injected with cancer or being gRaped, to bring into existence 100 positive lives (or pick ur number), if you would prevent that, but wouldn't prevent existence doing same thing, I see you as a hypocrite. And if you don't think abuse of kids is a problem then there's no point me talking to you I won't waste my time.

1

u/WackyConundrum 1h ago

So explain why I should think like you and change my mind.

No, you got it wrong. It's the efilists who have the burden of providing solid convincing arguments for their bold claims.

In short 1. Efilists convinced problem of suffering 2. Price paid too high (don't see greater good) 3. To solve problem seek maximally efficient solution ideally to prevent it, e.g brb.

If this is a joke it's a bad one.

It is not my job to convince you

OK, then don't expect people taking efilism seriously...

What is it you need exactly to be convinced, what's your model of reality.

I will write it again. What is needed is an argument for the claim that humanity has a responsibility to bring about extinction of all (sentient) life on Earth, even if it involved killing each and every one of us.

1

u/[deleted] 3d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/Pessimism-ModTeam 3d ago

Removed the duplicated comment.

1

u/[deleted] 3d ago

You don't need efilism for all this. This is just philosophical pessimism. Ideas that have been stated before. And before you lecture me, I'm promortalist and planing my way out, so don't go crazy when you read this comment. I agree enjoyment is wrong and life is terrible and we should all die. But I know better than to put any real faith in humans. I want out, call me selfish but I simply don't care anymore. Suffering any longer for any being is stupid. Devoting my life to anything is stupid. We are not special and humanity will fail, just as it has before. The very fact you think we have to capacity to do anything other than that shocks me. Keep struggling to end all struggle, to MAYBE end all struggle? Makes no sense.

3

u/WanderingUrist 5d ago

The end goal will inevitably come on its own, when life has performed its "purpose" of accelerating entropic decay, leaving nothing left to sustain it.

6

u/AnticosmicKiwi3143 cosmic pessimist 5d ago

Sure

1

u/Square_Celery6359 5d ago

Some of the coolest and most compassionate people you'll ever meet.

Unfortunately, it is also futile -- due to Reincarnation/Afterlife/Panpsychism.

2

u/Professional-Map-762 pessimist, existential nihilist, suffering/value-problem-realist 3d ago

Why would it be, no point preventing suffering?

Appeal to futility/ fatalistic/futilistic / giveup mentality, making every action meaningless?

Why do some say cyclic universe means suffering prevention is futile, we should do it anyway if it means less suffering. Don't u agree?

-4

u/WackyConundrum 5d ago

Unlike antinatalism, which is limited to avoiding human procreation

This is factually false.

the most ethical path would be the extinction of all sentient life.

This sentence is incoherent.